Brazil National Program consultancy process and upcoming visit in January/Review
|This page was updated and moved to Meta.|
If you have further advice and comments, please feel free to add them on that page!
This is a page reviewing the overall hiring process for the National Program Consultant in Brazil. The goal is that page will be moved onto Meta so that others can learn from the best practices.
A National Program Consultant was being hired by WMF to lead some of the Brazil Programs work, specifically by supporting and advancing the work already done and being done by the Wikimedia Brazil community. For the success of this position, it was agreed upon by both WMF and Wikimedia Brasil that community integration into the hiring process was essential, and so a method was collaboratively determined to get the best new employee possible! The outcome was an innovative interviewing process done jointly with WMF and WMBR, ultimately resulting in the hiring of an awesome program leader (ok - we are a bit biased:))!
The process resulted in three distinct phases all infuse with community support. The community worked with WMF to:
- (1) promote the position to high potential applicants
- (2) interview the top ~10 candidates, via two community-selected delegates
- (3) engage on wiki the final 4 candidates, through discussion on topics on Wikipedia
- (4) advise WMF on the results of the on-wiki assignment.
Steps for Hiring Process[editar]
|Application acceptance and initial screening|
a) Scope out position responsibilities
a) Selection by Wikimedia Brasil community of two volunteers to participate in in-person interviews alongside WMF's Barry Newstead
|Wiki assignment where candidates will prepare their thoughts on the situation for the Wikimedia Movement in Brazil|
a) Determine questions for the assignment, parameters of the assignment, and the assessment criteria (WMF & WMBR) 
|Post-assignment follow-up and interview with WMF|
a) Skype interview with Jessie Wild - Special Projects manager who has worked a lot with Brazilian community, to be completed by 20 Jan 2012
|Selection of National Program Consultant|
a) Compile the results of the assignments with the interview feedback for the finalists and select top 1-2 candidates for final interviews at WMF, to be completed by 26 Jan 2012
What went well[editar]
- Interviews by volunteers and WMF together gave a good idea to candidates of the main requirements for the job
- Online assessment allowed candidates to get a feeling of what was expected from them
- The process may not have been not too fast, creating the possibility of community involvement, but compared to other processes and international organizations it was quite objective and fast enough to keep canidates interest and availability.
- Privacy for candidates: some candidates had to be careful about announcing their application to avoid threatening their existing jobs. As a result, it is important to have some levels of anonymity.
- Privacy for community members: many of the community members are active in open knowledge fields in Brazil, and as a result are likely to interact with the finalists in some capacity in the future. Signing one's name on an open review of such candidates could be a delicate situation for the community member.
- Time to engage: the duration of the online assignment was only about one week in totality, so the finalists' were very impacted by their ability to spend time engaging during that specific week. Due to the intense nature of the online assignment, those candidates who for whatever reason did not have as much flexibility in the given week were negatively impacted.
- Assessment criteria: the criteria established to assess the assignment was not adhered to by the majority of community members who gave their feedback.
- Practical vs academic: some finalists expressed that the exercise resulted in too much academic conversation as people tried to "prove" their worth, rather than work collectively in finding a solution.
- Politicking: the on-wiki assignment could warp into promises from the candidates to the community, rather than constructive challenging of topics.
- Community involvement: there was only a small group of Wikimedians (5-8) who really participated, resulting in some slower conversations on-wiki as well as one-sided arguments. It is important to get more engagement.
Suggestions for improvement[editar]
- 1. Determine from the outset to incorporate the community in interviewing
Though WMF worked with the community in scoping the position and the timing of the position announcement, the idea of having the community integrated into the interviewing process did not happen until after the position was posted and WMBR approached WMF. The process worked fine, but the conversations on transparency and community involvement ideally should have occurred *before* the position was posted.
- 2. Construct a more structured assessment page
The first reviewers structured the assessment page by Reviewer name followed by their brief assessment of the individual candidates. Most organized their reviews in descending order. What could perhaps be more valuable is creating a review table, which could be filled in by supporting points and examples by community members, rather than having point-by-point assessments. If individual and more elaborate reviews are desired, these could be placed on the talk page, with the ultimate agreed upon outcome being the assessment table filled in on the main page.
It would be also important that the above mentioned review table contained criteria previously agreed by community members, CIS and WMF (shared with candidates before they go through assessment) in order to guide the reviews. There could be a collumn for open comments, avoiding that each volunteer had different criteria in mind when evaluating.
- 3. Crystalize the community consensus on candidates
As per the above, no consensus was reached by the community about which candidates were the best. While it is important to note that WMF has the final decision in the hiring process, the community is an essential advisor, and it is important for them to have a collective voice. The volunteers assigned to relay the community's thoughts should help clarify within the community what their overall consensus is.
- 4. Recruitment announcements
It seems India has the opportunity now, with CIS and community help, to announce the job position among fields directly related to free culture, free software and NGOs fields (at least in Brazil the company hired for recruitment was not very in to these fields world).
Also, it might be useful to inform candidates from the beginning that the final candidate will be required to go to San Francisco (if it will really be necessary). In Brazil, some candidates were desperately getting the American visa in the last minute.
- See Original position description. It is important to note that this piece was not done in complete conjunction with the community but ideally should have been (see Recommendations)
- For full selection process, see Selection Discussion
- See Assignment discussion page for more background
- See the review page for individual assessments of the finalists
- Note that interviewing with the executive director is required by all new hires
- See announcement by Barry on March 1, 2012
- See "Suggestions for Improvement": consensus was not fully realized
- Online Assignment
- Community evaluation of candidates
- 2012-Mar-01 Hiring announcement
- 2012-Jan-11 blog post: "Brazil Recruiting and Partnership with the Community Moves Forward